Should America go vegan to ward off obesity and save the environment?

Two new reports highlight the benefits of a plant-based diet for boosting physical health and emotional well-being.

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee found vegan, vegetarian and Mediterranean to be the most environmentally friendly diets.

Researchers from the nonprofit organization Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine write in the American Journal of Health Promotion that an 18-week plant-based diet can boost employee productivity and reduce anxiety, depression and fatigue.

The researchers placed employees of the auto-insurance firm GEICO who had type 2 diabetes and a body mass index (BMI) of 25 or above on a low-fat, low-glycemic, high-fiber vegan diet.

The employee cafeteria menu featured vegetable hummus sandwiches, seasonal leafy green salads, black bean chili and various fruits and vegetables rich in vitamins and minerals during the study period.

"Lunch and learn" sessions were also held on a weekly basis that encouraged employees to acquire new cooking skills and learn more about healthy food.

The authors report that study participants lost an average of 10 lb and experienced a 13-point drop in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, as well as improved blood sugar control.

Improvements in anxiety, depression, fatigue and general health were also reported, measured using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI).

The researchers note that some of the carbohydrate-rich foods in the study, including brown rice, oats and rye bread, help to regulate levels of the mood-controlling chemical serotonin in the brain as well as being good for other organs.

"The same foods that curb the risk for obesity, heart disease and diabetes may help boost overall mood," study author Dr. Neal Barnard explains. "In the evolving landscape of neurological research, a plant-based diet may help in treating symptoms of anxiety and depression."

Dr. Barnard also hypothesizes that improvements in physical health lead to employees becoming more physically and socially active, which in turn leads to improved mood and quality of life:

"Helping employees improve their health through a plant-based dietary intervention is a win-win situation for employees and the company. Who doesn't want to feel great, increase energy and maximize productivity in the process?"

The authors remind that obesity currently affects 35% of American adults. Obese people are associated with an increased health care cost of $1,429 annually, the researchers say, compared with people of a normal weight. Costs for lost productivity associated with obesity are estimated to total $73 billion each year.

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) have also released a 571-page report detailing their recommendations to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), in which the federal committee calls for the adoption of plant-based diets, in addition to taxes on desserts and electronic monitoring of how long Americans spend in front of the TV.

This plan to "transform the food system" is open to public comment for 45 days and will be used as the basis for the government's 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans - guidelines developed for making decisions about national health objectives, nutrition education and government food assistance programs.

As well as helping to curb the growing obesity epidemic, the DGAC believe that a plant-based diet will address climate change concerns:

"The major findings regarding sustainable diets were that a diet higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, and lower in calories and animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with less environmental impact than is the current US diet."

The committee found vegan, vegetarian and Mediterranean diets to have the least greenhouse gas emissions and be the most environmentally friendly.

"Current evidence shows that the average US diet has a larger environmental impact in terms of increased greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use and energy use, compared to the above dietary patterns," the report reads. "This is because the current US population intake of animal-based foods is higher and plant-based foods are lower than proposed in these three dietary patterns."

A multicenter randomized controlled trial of a nutrition intervention program in a multiethnic adult population in the corporate setting reduces depression and anxiety and improves quality of life: the GEICO Study, Ulka Agarwal, et al., American Journal of Health Promotion, doi: 10.4278/ajhp.130218-QUAN-72, published online 27 February 2015, abstract.

Recommended related news

Comments(9)

I am mostly Vegan, about once a week small portion of meat, no dairy or cheese, no domestically produced meat. I have been following Dr John McDougall for 2 years, I learned about him in "Forks Over Knives" - I am also an 'environmentalist' and know many that are too. I am surprised how hard it is to people to change their habits, even when they suffer acutively from chronic disease, also many environmentalist I know are big meat eaters, they don't see the hypocisy of it. I keep sharing the message and promoting the idea, winning over precious few converts, I also follow Dr Neal Barnard, T Colon Cambell, Caldwell Esselstyn, Joel Fuhrman, and every day Michael Gregor - all Medical Doctors and nutritionist extraordinire that know their stuff. In feel worlds better, years younger and more hopefull since adopting the dietary change.

There may be a billion Indian people worldwide who are vegetarians yet they have higher risk profiles and short life expectancy than many non-vegetarian populations. A few people on a diet for a few months does not prove more than a billion. The conclusion is too premature

I agree that a vegetarian diet is not necessarily good for health. What Dr. Neal Barnard sought to study is a whole foods, plant based diet, that focuses on whole, unprocessed fruits, vegetables, whole grains and beans, and eliminates (or minimizes) dairy, meat, cheese, and eggs. This diet need not be 100% vegetarian / vegan for these results, but the closer to 100% the better the outcome. Indian diets are loaded with oil, ghee, butter, products made with cheese (paneer), and too many sweets. Chai is basically too many tea leaves brewed beyond recognition, loaded with whole milk and lots of sugar until the teaspoon stands up in the cup, and drank several times a day, often with sweets and deep fried snacks. So you can see why Indians are dying every day, along with the fact that Indians have inherently higher risks even with "normal BMI" in the range of 23-25. Smaller coronary arteries coupled with Lp(a) along with much higher rates of metabolic syndrome join to create a bad combination and requires much more careful attention to diet, to a "whole foods, plant based" diet. Fortunately there are programmes like Sharan-India.org that seek to reform the typical Indian diet, replacing even wheat and rice with Millet, using no oil, and incorporating Yoga, with great results.

For an almost instant 'national transformation' to plant based diet - the reasonable place to start is with the dietary funds provided at taxpayer expense (food stamps). Designating specifically what foods can be purchased would be a simple solution.

I agree you cannot surmise the efficacy of a diet with just a couple of months. However, I believe there is much value in the diets of longevity hot spots around the globe. They all possess plant-based diets with very little processed foods, red meat and dairy. They are legume heavy and most are 90% plant based with remaining 10% coming from fish and/or eggs and white meat. Examples: Okinawa, Japan. Ikaria, Greece The Nicoyan Penninsula, Costa Rica and Loma Linda, CA. We should look to our Olympians in health span and lifespan in the long haul for guidance!!

Imagine a world where no one eats meat or dairy or any animal products--instead every one eats processed foods made only from GMO "Agent Orange Ready" staple crops. And all of those vegans drive SUVs, and fly frequently, constantly upgrade their (very polluting, resource-intensive) electronic gizmos, rarely exercise (what w/all the loudpipe Harleys, boomboom vehicles & jets/drones & helicopters flying overhead it's pretty unpleasant outside anyway--and in many homes), and all of those vegans who can afford it live in at least 2700 square foot homes (average square footage of new homes in 2014). What little not covered by house or garage property they own is kept "tidy" by use of leafblowers, herbicides/pestcides/ huge lawnmowers (because they use a "landscaper" for "lawncare")and fertilizer. Of course they have mostly grass, so there is little to no habitat for anything other then the humans living in the huge houses.
Wherever they go, they use combustion engine toys for "recreation" whether it's snowmobiles, ATVs/ORVs, huge RVs for "camping", jetskis, ,huge powerboats,etc.

Does that sound like it's going to save the "environment"?

There are also parts of the globe that are poorly suited to growing grains, fruit & veg but that historically had an ecology that supported buffalo, antelope, etc. Other areas that support elk and deer populations. (and sheep and supposedly vegans might wear wool) Why do humans want to make those species extinct? How is that protecting the environment? And if humans also don't want to tolerate the risks posed by having top of the food chain predators around (panthers, cougars, etc) who keep the populations of the large animals (elk, deer, etc.) in balance with their environment, then humans have to substitute for them. So it'd be better just to kill those animals like elk, etc., and just leave them there?

How about people just moderating ALL Of their environmentally distructive activities instead of saying, oh, if everyone became a vegan they'd be healthy and the environment would be protected. What environment? Whose environment? How many small animals and insects are destroyed/killed every year in the US due to habitat destruction by: (1) plowing up more land for growing grains? (2) use of herbicides/pesticides to control crop pests? Runoff of pesticides/herbicides into the water supply causing birth defects and hormonal/growth abnormalities in amphibians & fish--which is ALREADY HAPPENING (3)fertilizer run off into water destroying fish & amphibian food sources in creeks/rivers/streams?

I also completely agree with the above commenters who have explained very lucidly how it's quite possible to eat an unhealthy vegetarian diet or vegan diet.

A low fat diet with too many carbs is what has caused a large part of America's health problems. A truly healthy diet contains saturated fat and a good balance of omega 3s to omega 6s. Vegans can be heavy on the 6's. Stop the sugar and refined products like white flour and you are well on your way to better health. Unless you want to do some serious study on diet it is best to stay away from a vegan diet.

In response to Azure's "How many small animals and insects are destroyed/killed every year in the US due to habitat destruction by: (1) plowing up more land for growing grains?" etc. ...

Sorry, but that argument is spurious and entirely misguided ... Here are just three of the many reasons why ...

About 87% of our corn, and probably similar numbers for other grains, is grown to feed livestock at home and abroad (the corn statistic is from the USDA, circa 2005).

Too, raising animals requires 16 times more land, on average, than producing vegan food of equivalent nutrition ... so we'd be plowing up and spraying pesticides on LESS land if more of us ate exclusively plants.

Finally, the whole Pollan argument about rodents and insects being destroyed at the hands of the grain harvester is an unfounded logical leap. True, fewer wild animals exist on a farm after a harvest than before, but think about it: When rodents see and hear a huge, loud machine heading their way, they bolt for their lives. Sure, baby mice in nests, or the old and infirm can’t do much, but most mice and other little furry things are quite adept at avoiding large, noisy things. The same goes for insects. A team of six scientists in Argentina studied this and found that while the density of wildlife on farms was lower after harvest, the numbers of animals in the adjacent forests increased significantly. When grain was harvested and their cover vanished, the animals abandoned the farms and moved to the shelter of forested areas close by.

2017 Healthline Media UK Ltd. All rights reserved. MNT is the registered trade mark of Healthline Media. Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a healthcare professional.